Regardless how fast and aesthetically appealling a Chinese government run or endorsed google clone is, the value from Google to the typical user is more than just search (email, docs, etc.).
Many global users trust Google today. Even if every Chinese citizen trusts this google clone, the clone would still fail as it can never have a global trust under the present Chinese government policies.
Even worse is that Google probably fears their technology will fall in the hands of the Chinese who will just build an alternative google *exacly* as they like it, and not like before with 'cooperation' from google.
The Google brand is worth something to both Google and its users. I think any Google-like operation "in the hands fo the Chinese" would struggle to build that kind of trust with its users. How comfortable would people be sending private emails to someone@china-run-google-clone.cn or watching videos on china-is-watching-you-youtube.cn?
Based on the length of this investigation and ruling, I don't understand how you are coming to the conclusion the EU commission is jumping to conclusions. From what I have read to date on this, the EU commission didn't just sit down one day and say, "Sub-par performance of third party applications on Microsoft server software? FINE MICROSOFT!"
I'm not in the 'defend M$ at all costs' camp
I think stating the EU commission may have done just a cursory investigation of the situation clearly puts you in the 'defend M$ at all costs' camp.
If you actually critically think about it, all proprietary software companies are forking over dough (via taxes). They paid for it, but are not allowed to use it in ways that actually give them a return.
Give Microsoft a return within their present business model. There are plenty of companies that can generate a return with the licenses Microsoft finds objectionable, and those companies paid their taxes as well.
Given the concern expressed by the US in starting this investigation, should the Chinese government be as concerned with US software? What would be the reprecussions of the Chinese government investigating US software companies for possible spying?
Fortunately for banks, if the ATM equipment screws up and the customer can prove it (with receipts, etc), the banks have exposed themselves to lawsuits.
Unfortunately for the electorate, if the voting equipment screws up, it undermines the very foundation of a democratic country. And in this particular case, the customer is being asked to give up any hope of proving the equipment is flawed.
I am saying that in a community this large, one should expect a variety of views. Your comment does nothing to add to the conversation or explain why the comment is wrong -- it only confirms there are a variety of opinions on Slashdot.
If you find that frustrating, you might want to consider moving to a more narrow-minded website.
In this instance the university is acting as a landlord. If the university advertises services as part of their housing, they should be expected to deliver. If not, why not let the universities shut off the heat and water to the dorm's when there is a budget pinch.
If the answer is move off campus, then the university housing should no longer qualify for indirect housing subsidies (shared resources, govt bond issuance for new housing, etc). Give the subsidy directly to the students who can then make their own housing decisions.
The university decided to share the housing network with the rest of the university network. Separate them or deal with the problem.
If there is a limit to how far one is willing to delegate trust, it would be far more useful. Ie. root could withhold the ability to delegate trust from some users to prevent them from installing software. Or software could have its ability to recieve that delegation limited (unable to install more software).
'[The] Newspapermen (or their subclass who are interested in dailies and the glorification of information) have a fanatical belief in the transforming power of yellow journalism and a consequent horror of, and contempt for, heretics who do not share that belief... Given the quality of the writing in the newspapers I have seen, I doubt that many of the newspapermen are in the habit of sustained reading of complex texts. It is entirely possible that their intellectual needs are met by an accumulation of random facts and paragraphs.'
Microsoft has for all intents and purposes conceded the non-Microsoft operating systems to the competition (Safari, Firefox, etc). Microsoft can't win a war they are not willing (able?) to fight outside of Windows.
And day by day (country by country), that space is getting bigger as countries adopt opensource or recognize the risk of supporting a US-based corporation exclusively. Will Firefox continue to make inroads into Windows? Most likely. Will it be necessary for competition to be restored? I don't believe so.
In the end Microsoft's own policy of a Windows-only world will limit their ability to fight the battle let alone win the war.
Sure, there's a few strncpy() and memsset() and fread() calls in the code, but it's foolish to pretend that the "community" has contributed any significant proportion of the value or effort involved in creating the whole office suite.
If this is foolish, ie. there is no significant value in creating a fresh copy of strncpy(), memsset() and fread(), then why didn't the office suite creator spend the few extra hours to recreate them? Obviously, that code is worth more than the time to create it. It is the office suite owner's decision to either live by the GPL or recreate the functions with no "significant proportion of the value or effort involved in creating the whole office suite."
When Linux competes with Windows on price, it's good. When Indian programmers compete with Americans on price, it's bad.
This assumes the people making each arguement are one and the same. While there may be a few of these conflicted individuals on Slashdot, I believe the assumption is overly broad.
But I will say this: if something has no upfront cost and there is still doubt that it is cheaper, then maybe it's worth paying upfront.
If something has upfront costs and there is still doubt that it is cheaper, then why would one pay upfront?
Never having worked in CG, I am having some trouble understanding this concept.
What prevents the particle locations from being pre-calculated? Does the particle position rendering determine its next position? A link to the algorithm would be helpful.
This assumes that the value of Linux is diminished somehow by fewer users. Linux (the kernel) does not gain from network effects the same way a browser does. Linux cannot win or lose in a practical sense. And as long as hardware manufacturers don't actively cut their only lifeline to Microsoft independence, Linux should continue to operate just fine for the millions that use it.
On a related note, in my experience this past year, Mozilla compatibility has been steadily increasing. Both from accomodations by the Mozilla team for IE's flaws and increased awareness from website authors.
Each case you cite may very well have bugs or errors, but those problems rightly belong to the corporations that sold the product and their customers.
Voting is not a consumer/industrial issue. It is the exercise of legal rights of citizens and ultimately the direction the country takes. Reducing this to "bad engineering practices" belittles the importance of voting in a democracy.
Depending solely on corporations who view issues as purely commercial issues is the problem.
If the light is already green, they don't have to slow down to make sure the intersection is clear.
Some people have their radio's blaring and are only focused on the traffic light. The ambulance's usually slow down before crossing a red light to make sure everyone has stopped.
I don't understand how the DMCA would apply to the file format. The content of the documents would be copyright by the authors of the document, not Microsoft. If one were to save a file in the new format, what standing would Microsoft have to prevent decryption of the file?
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless how fast and aesthetically appealling a Chinese government run or endorsed google clone is, the value from Google to the typical user is more than just search (email, docs, etc.).
Many global users trust Google today. Even if every Chinese citizen trusts this google clone, the clone would still fail as it can never have a global trust under the present Chinese government policies.
Even worse is that Google probably fears their technology will fall in the hands of the Chinese who will just build an alternative google *exacly* as they like it, and not like before with 'cooperation' from google.
The Google brand is worth something to both Google and its users. I think any Google-like operation "in the hands fo the Chinese" would struggle to build that kind of trust with its users. How comfortable would people be sending private emails to someone@china-run-google-clone.cn or watching videos on china-is-watching-you-youtube.cn?
Under what legal theory?
let's not jump to conclusions here
Based on the length of this investigation and ruling, I don't understand how you are coming to the conclusion the EU commission is jumping to conclusions. From what I have read to date on this, the EU commission didn't just sit down one day and say, "Sub-par performance of third party applications on Microsoft server software? FINE MICROSOFT!"
I'm not in the 'defend M$ at all costs' camp
I think stating the EU commission may have done just a cursory investigation of the situation clearly puts you in the 'defend M$ at all costs' camp.
Well said.
If you actually critically think about it, all proprietary software companies are forking over dough (via taxes). They paid for it, but are not allowed to use it in ways that actually give them a return.
Give Microsoft a return within their present business model. There are plenty of companies that can generate a return with the licenses Microsoft finds objectionable, and those companies paid their taxes as well.
Given the concern expressed by the US in starting this investigation, should the Chinese government be as concerned with US software? What would be the reprecussions of the Chinese government investigating US software companies for possible spying?
The oceans are 30% shark? Yipes.
Fortunately for banks, if the ATM equipment screws up and the customer can prove it (with receipts, etc), the banks have exposed themselves to lawsuits.
Unfortunately for the electorate, if the voting equipment screws up, it undermines the very foundation of a democratic country. And in this particular case, the customer is being asked to give up any hope of proving the equipment is flawed.
No power gives the government the ability to take property from you and give it to someone else without compensation.
Patents are not property.
Neither.
I am saying that in a community this large, one should expect a variety of views. Your comment does nothing to add to the conversation or explain why the comment is wrong -- it only confirms there are a variety of opinions on Slashdot.
If you find that frustrating, you might want to consider moving to a more narrow-minded website.
No matter what the problem, someone on Slashdot will blame Bush for it.
No matter the comment, someone else on Slashdot will find fault with someone in the Slashdot community.
In this instance the university is acting as a landlord. If the university advertises services as part of their housing, they should be expected to deliver. If not, why not let the universities shut off the heat and water to the dorm's when there is a budget pinch.
If the answer is move off campus, then the university housing should no longer qualify for indirect housing subsidies (shared resources, govt bond issuance for new housing, etc). Give the subsidy directly to the students who can then make their own housing decisions.
The university decided to share the housing network with the rest of the university network. Separate them or deal with the problem.
Troubleshooting manufacturing equipment and robots. Programming new industrial equipment. The bigger the plant the more the running around.
If there is a limit to how far one is willing to delegate trust, it would be far more useful. Ie. root could withhold the ability to delegate trust from some users to prevent them from installing software. Or software could have its ability to recieve that delegation limited (unable to install more software).
'[The] Newspapermen (or their subclass who are interested in dailies and the glorification of information) have a fanatical belief in the transforming power of yellow journalism and a consequent horror of, and contempt for, heretics who do not share that belief... Given the quality of the writing in the newspapers I have seen, I doubt that many of the newspapermen are in the habit of sustained reading of complex texts. It is entirely possible that their intellectual needs are met by an accumulation of random facts and paragraphs.'
How wrong that sounds today.
Microsoft has for all intents and purposes conceded the non-Microsoft operating systems to the competition (Safari, Firefox, etc). Microsoft can't win a war they are not willing (able?) to fight outside of Windows.
And day by day (country by country), that space is getting bigger as countries adopt opensource or recognize the risk of supporting a US-based corporation exclusively. Will Firefox continue to make inroads into Windows? Most likely. Will it be necessary for competition to be restored? I don't believe so.
In the end Microsoft's own policy of a Windows-only world will limit their ability to fight the battle let alone win the war.
Sure, there's a few strncpy() and memsset() and fread() calls in the code, but it's foolish to pretend that the "community" has contributed any significant proportion of the value or effort involved in creating the whole office suite.
If this is foolish, ie. there is no significant value in creating a fresh copy of strncpy(), memsset() and fread(), then why didn't the office suite creator spend the few extra hours to recreate them? Obviously, that code is worth more than the time to create it. It is the office suite owner's decision to either live by the GPL or recreate the functions with no "significant proportion of the value or effort involved in creating the whole office suite."
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Dealing with People You Can't Stand is a light hearted book that provides a lot of good strategies.
Two rebuttals:
When Linux competes with Windows on price, it's good. When Indian programmers compete with Americans on price, it's bad.
This assumes the people making each arguement are one and the same. While there may be a few of these conflicted individuals on Slashdot, I believe the assumption is overly broad.
But I will say this: if something has no upfront cost and there is still doubt that it is cheaper, then maybe it's worth paying upfront.
If something has upfront costs and there is still doubt that it is cheaper, then why would one pay upfront?
Never having worked in CG, I am having some trouble understanding this concept.
What prevents the particle locations from being pre-calculated? Does the particle position rendering determine its next position? A link to the algorithm would be helpful.
Linux's true downfall has . . .
This assumes that the value of Linux is diminished somehow by fewer users. Linux (the kernel) does not gain from network effects the same way a browser does. Linux cannot win or lose in a practical sense. And as long as hardware manufacturers don't actively cut their only lifeline to Microsoft independence, Linux should continue to operate just fine for the millions that use it.
On a related note, in my experience this past year, Mozilla compatibility has been steadily increasing. Both from accomodations by the Mozilla team for IE's flaws and increased awareness from website authors.
Each case you cite may very well have bugs or errors, but those problems rightly belong to the corporations that sold the product and their customers.
Voting is not a consumer/industrial issue. It is the exercise of legal rights of citizens and ultimately the direction the country takes. Reducing this to "bad engineering practices" belittles the importance of voting in a democracy.
Depending solely on corporations who view issues as purely commercial issues is the problem.
If the light is already green, they don't have to slow down to make sure the intersection is clear.
Some people have their radio's blaring and are only focused on the traffic light. The ambulance's usually slow down before crossing a red light to make sure everyone has stopped.
I don't understand how the DMCA would apply to the file format. The content of the documents would be copyright by the authors of the document, not Microsoft. If one were to save a file in the new format, what standing would Microsoft have to prevent decryption of the file?